25 October 2007

But I can't help feel sorry for the man. I have some lingering affection for him. I grew up with a fascination for biological sciences, and Watson and Crick were demigods in the textbooks; the mythic account of their discovery of the double helix was like Prometheus bring fire to the primitives. I read Watson's memoir, The Double Helix, and came away feeling as if I knew the young scientist in the '50s, like I was there during the exciting time of discovery. It was a key part of my inspiration to go into the life sciences. Sure, I knew there was much that was fictionalized and much that was omitted (Rosalind Franklin's contribution, for example). But still, it was a great story and great science.

It's sad indeed to see a great man end his career diminished in such a way. I don't blame him per se for having anachronistic views: he is quite old and I have known many elderly individuals to have embarrassingly unreconstructed views on race, sexuality, society, etc. It is a pity that he spoke out so prominently that it couldn't be ignored and that an institutional repudiation was required, and that he must thus end his long and distinguished career in ignominy.

8 comments:

Here is a quote from 1973 Time Magazine article. Unfortunately, Dr. Watson was not new in his controversial views.

Last week a scientist whose work has helped to make engineering—and even creation—of life a possibility tackled this dilemma head on. Dr. James Watson, co-discoverer of the double helix, the master molecule DNA, urged that doctors attending the birth of laboratory-conceived human babies be given the right to terminate the lives of the infants if they are grossly abnormal.

Watson's statement, made in an interview in the A.M.A.'s new socio-economic magazine Prism, is no casual endorsement of infanticide. Watson believes that doctors have not fully considered the potentially disastrous consequences of their interference in natural processes.

Watson and Crick did a brilliant piece of detective work to be sure. But they did it with stolen evidence. The prize should of been shared with Rosalind Franklin, whose crystallography images were the key to their breakthrough. But she died of ovarian cancer possibly resulting from her work and Nobel prizes are never awarded posthumously. Even back then, Watson wrote a rude and hurtful book that was still rude and hurtful after being edited to soften the comments.

stolen evidence? that's ridiculous. 1) it's not stolen information if someone willingly shows it to you and 2) she published the x-ray structures in the same issue of nature as the watson and crick paper. so she got credit for her work, and they cited her in theirs. in science, we don't call building upon other people's results "stealing".

I don't condone watson's recent comments, but in a response piece, he did make a point that I found very interesting- science is what it is, not what we want it to be. if it turns out that there are genetic variations that contribute to intelligence (and there almost certainly are), and differences in some of those genes are found to vary between races or ethnicities... what then? do we dismiss results because they don't conform to how we think the world should work?

Shadowfax

About me: I am an ER physician and administrator living in the Pacific Northwest. I live with my wife and four kids. Various other interests include Shorin-ryu karate, general aviation, Irish music, Apple computers, and progressive politics. My kids do their best to ensure that I have little time to pursue these hobbies.

Disclaimer

This blog is for general discussion, education, entertainment and amusement. Nothing written here constitutes medical advice nor are any hypothetical cases discussed intended to be construed as medical advice. Please do not contact me with specific medical questions or concerns. All clinical cases on this blog are presented for educational or general interest purposes and every attempt has been made to ensure that patient confidentiality and HIPAA are respected. All cases are fictionalized, either in part or in whole, depending on how much I needed to embellish to make it a good story to protect patient privacy.

All Content is Copyright of the author, and reproduction is prohibited without permission.